Description

Link the bottom of Granite of the Apes into the top of Coup d'Etat (link point is obvious and after the double kneebar after the crux on Granite of the Apes). This route combines the best and hardest climbing on Granite of the Apes, Orifice Politics, and Coup d'Etat. This is currently the hardest route at the Orifice and the most direct line up the main wall. Get some.

Started a forum on this question as well. Should a route with 5 feet of new climbing that is not even the crux be a named route in the next guidebook or should it just be mentioned in one of the three routes that are now linked?

Eric and Red, there is no longer a question of whether this route should get a name. For better or worse, whether it deserves it or not, I gave it a name. So the only question is to put the route in the book or not. I don't think it matters specifically how the route is listed, but I do think it is a bummer to not list a route that someone has thought good enough or novel enough to give a name.

This link up is not much harder than anything on the wall and a bunch of people could have done it, they just didn't. None the less I think its the best line and in my youth and naivete I chose to give it a name. A better example is the hebe/trapezoid link up at the Beaver wall. Link it one way, its not that hard and Alex Mc didnt choose to give it a name. Link it the other way, its the hardest route on the wall and maybe the whole mountain, and one of my proudest FAs. I could care less that the bolts are already there and the sections had been climbed. In that sense it is very similar to a bolted but unsent project.

At any bolted modern sport crag, you will find linkups with names. The VRG is a great example.

I Absolutely agree with Alex here. Link ups are common in almost all of the popular sport areas across the U.S. To not name them separately is plain silly. To rate them lower quality because they were not the original bolted lines is even more silly. Link ups may not require the FA to place bolts or clean rock, but it still takes vision and hard work.

If some 5.8 climber who has the vision to link R1 to R2 and feels strongly that it is worthy posts and names it R1 1/2 should we name it. What if I named and posted the 50 or so of these variations I have done. Where do we draw the line? Should we include sit down starts? What about a traverse into the start of Sentenced to Hang? Should we start doing eliminates on routes? If I eliminate the knee bars on Orifice Politics can I rename it Nasty Orifice Politics? What if I do the start of Climb with a View and finish on Hebe? Do we really want to name and list every combination? Do we want the Beaver Wall to have fifty routes on it?

Do whatever you want on MP.com.

Link ups can make a route more sustained and better. If they do then I will include them in some form or another but probably not create an entire entry with a name.

If you really have to name something and you want it in the next guidebook go do a new route or finish an old project.

My short answer is, yes. The reason why is because IT IS JUST CLIMBING!! The community will police itself in odd instances like the ones mentioned in the above comment, which are all rather extreme examples. No line needs to be drawn. There hasn't really been a problem thus far. We're talking about a handful of routes out of THOUSANDS. FWIW, some of my favorite and best guidebooks, the New Maple Canoyn guidebook, the Tensleep guidebook, the Hueco Tanks guidebook, the Bishop Boudlering guidebook, all include linkups as separate routes/ problems.

Lastly I would ask any guidebook author if they thought that including said linkups increased or decreased the usefulness of their guide to those that want to buy/use it.

Thanks Luke, I don't think I could say it any better. In terms of "drawing a line" I would say that responsibility falls on the community, not the guide author. And since to my knowledge not a single one of your examples has actually happened and been named (I actually thought about the CWAV-Hebe link but decided trapezoid-hebe was the better and harder line) I agree with Luke that the community is self regulating and there is no problem.

I think ultimately Luke nails it that its a question of is the guide more or less useful without the handful(or less) of linkups. I see no harm to adding them, and they can provide a new and valid challenge for climbers. I always want to know all the options at a crag, especially when they are harder than existing routes, so I think its a net plus.

If there is a killer linkup that people want to name on MP, that is fine by me. Eric can sort it out and put things into the guide however he sees fit. In my view it makes most sense to make note of linkups in the description/comments for the original routes.

OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet. - RK

Regardless of the shameful origins, this is the best route on the wall. According to the data on Mountain Project, Orifice Politics was completed a year before Coup d'Etat. Does that make Coup an independent route or just a hard variation to OP? If Coup gets to be an independent route when it's only a hard variation, why not ISOS? Are hard finishes more worthy than hard starts?

Consider the accident of history argument. Suppose the history of the Orifice was different, and AK managed to stand under this wall before any of the routes had been established. I wouldn't be surprised if he would've bolted this exact line.